Suns to protest Arizona immigration law

Is it in the best tradition of Free Speech, or the worst tradition of marketing and pandering? The Phoenix Suns have decided to wear their "Los Suns" game jerseys during their nationally-televised semifinal game to protest Arizona's new law targeting illegal immigrants. The action is proceeding with the approval of both the NBA and the players union.

Robert Sarver decided - with unanimous support from his players - that the Suns would wear their "Los Suns" jerseys for Game 2 tonight on Cinco de Mayo, a Mexican holiday.

The gesture, which came with the blessing of the NBA and the league's players union, reflects Sarver's belief that passing Senate Bill 1070 was not "the right way to handle the immigration problem, Number 1," he said. "Number 2, as I read through the bill, it felt to me a little bit like it was mean-spirited, and I personally just don't agree with it."

Arizona sports teams and events have become targets for protests and calls for boycotts since SB 1070 was signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer on April 23.

The law makes it a state crime to be in Arizona without proper documents and requires local police to check the legal status of suspected undocumented immigrants.

Citizenship revoked after 29 years as an American

We are often quick to point out the holes in keeping out illegal immigrants in the current system. But the fact is that the U.S. Immigration system is just as broken in dealing fairly with LEGAL immigrants. Consider the case of Angela Boneva, who was granted citizenship in 1981 only to be told now that she "was never a citizen". And all of her attempts to get clarification have come to naught as she faces an implacable, uncaring bureaucracy.

After she sought to renew her U.S. passport in 2003, the State Department informed her that a consular employee's decision to give her citizenship in 1981 broke a rule dictating that her father had to have lived in the U.S. for 10 years before she was born. His time in the U.S. before moving to Bulgaria totaled only six years.

But the letter pointed out, that same residency requirement was reduced in 1986 to five years, so someone in her position would be eligible for citizenship today — though not her.

Boneva received a form letter in 2003 saying "it does not appear" that she qualifies as a citizen anymore. She has made repeated but vain attempts to get a definitive answer from U.S. authorities. But just last month, she was sent the very same form letter again — this time with another woman's photograph stapled above her name. That letter recommended Boneva contact another U.S. agency, which had already turned her away.

Immigration turned out to be a "third rail" issue for President George W. Bush. But we need to bite the bullet and come to grips with a system that is short on justice and long on outrage

The Anti-Bush: Trying to do it all

There was one characteristic of President George W. Bush that his opponents never figured a way to effectively combat - his ability to focus all of his attention and power on one issue at a time. While his Democratic opponents were all trying to pull him into battles on health care, defense, immigration, stem cells, abortion, etc., he would pick just one issue and make it his administration's top priority. Every major speech, every major TV appearance, every major article produced would focus on that one issue, until either the president has his way or it became clear that the American people wee not behind him.

President Obama seems obsessed with the idea of being the Anti-Bush, not only undoing moves that the public was never comfortable with (i.e. Gitmo) but also taking opposite stances on nearly everything. One of those moves is trying to attack every issue and every constituency at the same time. Now, in the midst of an economic crisis, not only is trying to tackle military transformation, health care reform, and tax reform, but now also Immigration Reform (which incidentally is one of the few issues that President George W Bush focussed on but had to abandon without having his way).

Perhaps this is a "divide and conquer" strategy to force the opposition to thin themselves out by opposing every Obama priority. But it looks like a desperate man trying to make hay because he knows his time is short. And desperation is never attractive in a leader.

Making Immigration Law Personal

Part of me does not want to post this story as I think it was only brought up by the media due to immigration reform being a hot topic. That being said, I'm curious what other Mod-Bloggers see as the solution to the following situation.

Alex Jiminez, a member of the U.S. Army, has been missing in Iraq for just over a month. His wife, Yaderlin, came here illegally. Alex then applied for a green card for her which has not come through. The problem is that since she is illegally here and has been for more than a year, the law says that she must be deported and cannot return to the U.S. for 10 years. At this point, it will take an act of Congress to keep her here.

Part of me says that she came here illegally and they should have known the risks. Their illegal actions should not be rewarded. On the other hand, I don't think I could be the judge that handed down that verdict. The fact that her husband is currently MIA just compounds the "human factor" part of the issue.

I think I have decided NO on the Immigration Bill

I am one of those who has been voting "Undecided" in the poll about the new immigration bill. On the one hand, I agree very much that the current system is broken, both for legal immigrants and for illegal immigrants, and I am not against the idea of a limited amnesty to clear the slate and let us begin again anew. On the other hand, I have found it hard to break through the long list of options here and get an idea of what is really being done. I am a great believer that we are a nation of immigrants (unless your ancestors were amerindians) and that the willingness to accept anyone who is willing to work hard and embrace our culture is one of the things which has made America great.

The arguments against this bill by most Conservatives have not been convincing to me. Those who claim amnsesty can not work and point to the 1986 bill, seem too hide-bound to me. Those who claim it can't work because we have too many imigrants already, seem to have a limited vision. And those who claim we have too few whites in the country already seem rascist to me. The arguments against the bill by Liberals are even less convincing. Those who claim it is splitting up families are ignoring the reality of immigration - that it is a grand gamble and that by breaking the law by entering a land outside its system you are placing yourself outside its protections. And those who claim that it is punishing unskilled workers don't seem to understand that we are not compelled to take anyone who wants to come. It is reasonable to favor those will skills we need.

The arguments for the bill have likewise been unconvincing. Most say simply "We need to do something, and this is the only bill that could possibly pass." They point to a provision for everyone in the bill. What is telling to me is that few to none are pointing anything and saying "This will work." They are just saying "It is the best we can do." I am a great believer in compromise as an engine of democracy, but not compromise for its own sake.

Peggy Noonan has finally made a compelling argument to me. And it is tellingly simple. The bill is too complex to work, and too complicated to enforce. And she is right. I have a friend whose in-laws are legal immigrants, here for political assylum. They have been caught up in the immigration system for years, and every few years have to live in fear for their lives as a judge combs through the REAMS of immigration law to figure out if they are still allowed to stay. If they go back, they die. Simple as that. But not so simple for a judge, who has to decide if their deaths are enough to justify staying here. It should be simple.

There, a decision is made. I can't vote on this myself, but I hope my representatives are listening.

Real Immigration Reform?

What is all this about an Immigration Bill?

The poll has been up since yesterday, so it is only fair that we actually post a story about this. The new "bipartisan immigration bill" has finally made its way out of negotiations, and it appears both sides are equally unhappy with it. Sometimes that is the sign of a good compromise. Sometimes that is the sign of a DOA bill. We shall see. What has been hard to find is a good summary of the thing without all of the commentary that is already being flung at it with words like "Amnesty" or "Discrimination" or "Criminalization". The White House has their own summary from their daily press briefings, which you are welcome to read. However, it was long, pedantic, and overly focussed assuming you already know a lot about immigration reform. This summary is a lot more clear to me.

Illegal aliens who "come out of the shadows" by applying for a Z visa would have to pass a background check, remain employed, and avoid criminal behavior, the White House said in a lengthy summary of the legislation released on Thursday.

A Z visa will allow people who sneaked into the country illegally before Jan. 1, 2007, to "live, work and travel freely." But to get a Z visa, illegal aliens will be required to pay a $1,000 fine, "meet accelerated English and civics requirements," stay employed, and renew their visa every four years...

The bill says future immigrants will be selected based on the "skills and attributes" they bring to the United States," including their educational background, their ability to speak English, their job skills, and family ties to the United States.

The bill also ends "chain migration," in which a majority of green cards go to relatives of U.S. citizens....

"To relieve pressure on the border and provide a lawful way to meet the needs of our economy, the proposal creates a temporary worker program to fill jobs Americans are not doing," the White House said.

"Guest workers" would be limited to three two-year terms, and they'd have to spend at least a year outside the United States between each term.

While I applaud Congress and the White House for giving this a try, I have a feeling the bil is DOA at this point in the election cycle. Quite clearly, this Congress is more interested in talking about what the White House does wrong than in making any progress before the 2008 elections. However, this bill may go down in history as the start of the grand debate among the American people - raising the visibility of the issue and forcing the NEXT Congress and President to act.